No you wouldn't, because you are one of those guys who loves to run his mouth, swearing all the time and acting like your opinion is the final word on any topic you decide to throw in your 2 cents on. You talk a lot, but you never really do anything, do you? What have you ever actually done to be such an expert on everything? Seriously. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion, but what have you ever done in your life that would make you qualified to be a know it all expert on what it takes to be a part of a gigging band for two years? You wouldn't have a clue. Pete did a lot more than just "accept the position" of drummer in The Beatles. He spent more time playing live for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo did in his entire career, at times drew more paying fans to The Beatles shows than the other 3 put together, created a beat that became the new Liverpool sound, helped the group become the most popular group in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with record deals in 2 different countries and also helped manage the groups business affairs. That's more than just accepting a position.

I've only been a drummer for 35 years and have been in and played in several different bands. Thanks for playing though.

Quote

I've proved my point a dozen different way on many different posts. You usually skip right past the facts of my answers and just keep throwing out attack questions. I answer all of them and the the whole process repeats itself. Pete's first take at "Love Me Do" sucked beyond belief? So did Ringo's first take at "Love Me Do". He couldn't keep the timing right and had the exact same problem Pete had. George Martin thought so. So did Paul McCartney. Ringo's first attempt at "Love Me Do" sucked so bad that Martin booked studio drummer Andy White he following week to try and get it recorded right. They let Ringo play tamborine (same instrument Yoko played).

Ok great. They both tanked 'Love Me Do', but let me ask you something,,,who's version did you think was better?

Quote

You asked for examples of Pete's best work with the Beatles?

"Our best work was never recorded. We were at our best when we played the dance halls of Liverpool & Hamburg. The world never saw that. Later on we became technically efficent recording artists."

-John Lennon

How convenient. A debate with no actual proof. Your in a no lose situation.

Quote

I asked you if The Beatles were to have later sacked Ringo and replaced him with Anysley Dunbar or Mitch Mitchell, would that mean Ringo sucked and didn't contribute anything to The Beatles too. You say yes???!!! That's just a stupid way at looking at things. Whatever Ringo contributed, he contributed. Just like whatever Pete contributed he contributed. Just because you sack someone, that doesn't erase the contributions the person made before they were sacked.

Yeah, the contributions would still stand. Your right. I just wish we knew the contributions that Pete made to the band. Obviously, you feel its a great deal more than I do. I've heard his drumming, and I just dont think he was that good.

Quote

They were selling out shows in 2 different countries with fans standing in line for days before the show just to have a chance to get in. It looks like a whole lot of people wanted to hear that "crap" as you call it.

Yeah, those groups of a hundred fans must have been on the edge of their seat.

Quote

The point wasn't when did they have the most fun. The point was when were The Beatles playing at their best as a live act. John Lennon says they were at their best during the time Pete Best was the drummer.

Seriously though, how couldnt they be? With Ringo, they were playing to tens of thousands of people without being able to hear. I'd challenge anybody to play well under those conditions.

Quote

Who says Ringo Starr was the best drummer in Liverpool? You?

No,,,,Paul McCartney.

Quote

This question was already answered once before, so pay attention tkitna. Pete did not pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed for 2-3 years. He was asked to join Lee Curtis & The All-Stars. In January 1962, The Beatles with Pete Best had narrowly won The Mersey Beat Poll as the most popular group in Germany (narrowly defeating Ringo's group Rory Storm & The Hurricaines). In January 1963, just 4 months after Pete was replaced by Ringo, The Beatles won again in a very close vote. This time they narrowly beat out the new hottest band in Liverpool - Lee Curtis & The All-Stars featuring Pete Best who finished 2nd in the poll.

We've been over this already. Nobody has ever heard of Lee Curtis so its irrelevant. Why didnt he continue on afterwards with other bands. just seems strange to me that a great talent like Pete Best wasnt involved in something bigger than Lee Curtis after the Beatles.

nimrod

Pete loses the timing on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do". Ringo Starr had the same problem on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do" also, despite having an additional month to learn it.

You can't judge a person's entire career based on one day in the studio. It isn't fair to Pete or Ringo.

Its good enough for me that John Paul & George thought Ringo was a much better drummer for their band, you dont just sack a drummer light-heartedly they must've been really unhappy with Pete. Why cant you just accept that ? so besides promoting your film (not being sarcastic) what are you trying to say BeatlesAtTheirBest ?

I've only been a drummer for 35 years and have been in and played in several different bands. Thanks for playing though.

If you've been a drummer for 35 years then how can you make some of the flippant comments you make. Time and again you try and dismiss Pete Best's contributions in the two years he was in The Beatles by just comparing Best's version of "Love Me Do" to Ringo Starr's version. Nothing else matters. Then when I point out that Ringo had the same timing problem that Pete had when he first attempted "Love Me Do", and that both George Martin and Paul McCartney were unhappy with it. You still don’t address the my original question of how can you so flippantly dismiss the contributions that Pete Best made during his 2 years playing live in The Beatles by comparing the original studio versions of “Love Me Do” with Pete Best on drums vs. the final version of “Love Me Do” with Ringo Starr on drums. You do so again here...

Quote

Ok great. They both tanked 'Love Me Do', but let me ask you something,,,who's version did you think was better?

I thought Ringo Starr's final version of "Love Me Do" was better than Pete Best's first attempt at "Love Me Do". For the record, I thought Lennon, McCartney & Harrison were much better on the final version too. Too bad Pete didn’t get another crack at it like Ringo did. It would be interesting to compare Pete’s final version with Ringo’s initial attempt. Too bad we can’t do that.

Quote

How convenient. A debate with no actual proof. Your in a no lose situation.

You say you have been drumming for 35 years and played in several bands. Yet, when I say things like "Pete Best spent more time playing live for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo did in his entire career, at times drawing more paying fans to The Beatles shows than the other 3 put together, created a beat that became the new Liverpool sound, helped the group become the most popular group in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with record deals in 2 different countries and also helped manage the groups business affairs."

You blow right by that and go right back asking to more questions or make more statements dismissing whatever fact I am pointing out as not important. When I comment on John Lennon complaining how The Beatles started getting worse after Brian put them in suits and they sold out, and he feels that The Beatles were at their best as a band when they were playing live in the clubs of Liverpool & Hamburg. You reply...

Quote

"Sure they were palying all the time and they felt competent at their instruments, but if I compare what they were doing then to say Sgt. Peppers, i'd say John was full of sh*t. Of course John complained about. He complained about everything because he's a miserable f***. "

At one point you said that because The Beatles replaced Best with Starr, that proves Pete sucked and contributed nothing during his time in The Beatles. I asked you if The Beatles were to have later coldheartedly sacked Ringo without even bothering to tell him then and replaced him with Anysley Dunbar or Mitch Mitchell, would that mean Ringo sucked and didn't contribute anything to The Beatles too? You said yeah. Now to your credit you've reconsidered your position there.

I tell you The Beatles with Pete Best were selling out places like The Cavern, where fans were queuing up days in advance for a chance to get in. They were being called "a phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime" a full year before Ringo Starr joined the group. You sarcastically dismiss facts like that with flippant comments like...

Quote

After he (Ringo) joined, they were the biggest band in the world. Big difference there.

or

Quote

Yeah, those groups of a hundred fans must have been on the edge of their seat.

I don’t know where you come from, but where I come from "A phenomenon unlike anything we will see again in our lifetime" doesn't sound like just a couple hundred fans sitting on the edge of their seats. It sounds like Beatlemania! It sounds like The Beatles!!! A full year before Ringo Starr joined the group.

You say that Paul McCartney says The Beatles got Ringo Starr because he was known as Liverpool's greatest drummer so it must be true. McCartney didn't start saying that kind of thing until recent years. Heck, when John Lennon was asked if Ringo Starr was the best drummer around didn't he reply that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles (Paul McCartney was).

You ask...

Quote

Again with this age old question, if Pete was so good, why werent people and bands knocking down his door for his services? Did he pull a Brian Wilson and lay in bed all depressed for 2 or 3 years? This is the question I want answered the most.

I tell you that Pete's new band, Lee Curtis & The All-Stars instantly became The Beatles new rival as the most popular band in Liverpool and finished a narrow 2nd in the January 1963 Mersey Beat poll. You say...

Quote

We've been over this already. Nobody has ever heard of Lee Curtis so its irrelevant.

Lee Curtis & The All Stars were rivaling The Beatles as the 2nd most popular band in the city of Liverpool - just 4 months after Pete joined the group. That would have been very relevant to people living in Liverpool at the time.

I am not saying Pete Best is the greatest drummer in the world, or was even the greatest drummer in Liverpool at the time. All I am saying is that you can't believe everything you read in Wikipedia. Everybody knows that you can't trust Wikipedia because vandals can change it to say crazy things. They can change the page to make it say somthing daft like "Beatles guitarist John Harrison says that he wrote "While My Cigar Gives Me Creeps" after a panic attack from drinking too much coffee." Usually that type of vandalism is caught and corrected quickly. The real problem with Wikipedia is people with an agenda (like a publicist) can manipulate the information to give a position they favor and get away with it. All it takes it one referenced source for Wikipedia to look on something as a fact. You just find one crackpot book to use as reference or anyone making a statement that can be found on line, you reference it and PRESTO!!! It's an accepted Wikipedia fact.

There is a tread on theis website discussing the origins of the name "The Beatles". Right now if you go to Wikipedia, there is no mention of John Lennon having a role as in coming up with The Beatles name. NONE! And it's been that way on Wikipedia for a while. Because there is one reference to Bill Harry saying Stu thought of "Beetles" and no other references to anyone else saying anything else - including no references to The Beatles themselves saying anything on the subject - it becomes an undisputed Wikipedia fact that John Lennon had nothing to do with coming up with the name "The Beatles". Undisputed until someone disputes it.

See the problem there? That's the point I am trying to make tkitna. I am trying to shed light on facts you might not find in Wikipedia or in The Beatles own self serving Anthology. Anthology isn't the whole story. That's all I am trying to say. You say you spent 35 years playing drums and spent time in a band. How popular was YOUR band. How much did YOU contribute to the bands popularity? Pete Best, for whatever his limitations on drums, was the only person who wanted the job of drumming for that bum band, The Beatles, and he contributed a lot. He contributed a great deal to their success as did the others. He helped manage the affairs of the band; he was a reliable bandmate missing just 3 or 4 out of 750+ shows, no more than the others and a lot less than Paul McCartney; he developed a loud style of drumming others dubbed "The Atom Beat" that the other Liverpool drummers including Ringo Starr began copying; he was the biggest draw at their shows and he put more time in drumming live for The Beatles in his 2 years than Ringo Starr did in his entire career. He should get some credit for all of that.

When is the last time you saw any of that mentioned in Wikipedia or Beatles Anthology?

Its good enough for me that John Paul & George thought Ringo was a much better drummer for their band, you dont just sack a drummer light-heartedly they must've been really unhappy with Pete. Why cant you just accept that ? so besides promoting your film (not being sarcastic) what are you trying to say BeatlesAtTheirBest ?

People in life get sacked, sh*t happens every day

I am trying to say that information is out there, but real, true story of the early years of The Beatles, the most successful entertainment group in the history of the world is not reported accurately. I am also saying that this early history - the time when Pete Best was the drummer for The Beatles, the time when John Lennon says The Beatles were at their best is not properly appreciated or properly understood by most fans of the group.

I am not just posting here to bring attention to my film. I made a film and am posting here to bring more attention to this issue. I am hoping to educate, entertain and hopefully change a few peoples misconceptions. I am hoping to shed a little light of the truth and keep this issue alive as much as I can in 2012 - the 50th anniversary of the sacking of Pete and the birth of The Beatles as the world knows them, John, Paul, George & Ringo.

I thought I'd already posted this, but I don't see it...In the YouTube video I posted of Best with the Curtis band, clearly he's a solid drummer but the one thing I noticed a lack of was the cymbals/high hat sound that Ringo made so mesmerizing on the early Beatles' songs.

For you drummers/historians, was Ringo the first to use that constant cymbal sound on records? If so, he deserves a ton of credit for the Beatles sound and was quite the innovator.

I noticed Best used to avoid those cymbals.

The Beatles used to comment that their sounds was better the few times Ringo had played with them in Hamburg while Best was sick. I'll bet it was the cymbals.

I was going to write a whole page response as usual, but this horse has been dead for 5 pages now.

Here's how I feel. Pete Best deserves credit for sticking with the band during their 2 year growing pains. Yes, i'm sure they all got better with repetitive playing. Yes, Pete was probably the most popular member at the time. Yes, he got a bad deal in the end.

I also would like to add that I dont feel there would be no Beatles without Pete Best. They would have found somebody eventually. Lennon and McCartney were to driven not to succeed. I dont feel that Petes musical contribution was as big a deal as others in this thread do. I feel he was a competent drummer that held a steady beat and drove the band. Pete had the 'Atom Beat', Ringo had 'Starr Time'. Pick your poison. Members in the band have even said that Ringo was better (Paul and George), but maybe they were just standing by their fianl decision. I still think if Pete helped write some songs or had any input to the musical decisions, i'd change my views some. Whatever, it is what it is.

As for BeatlesAtTheirBest, once again, its cool that you are so adamant about your stance. You stated that I come off as a GTFOOH type of person and thats probably true. I apologize once again for that. I do want to tell you though that your opinion of Pete isnt some great discovery that only your aware of and everybody else seems to be blind of. If your goal is to have people be aware that Pete playing with the band during their infant years and his duration contributed to their rise, you've done a good job. If your trying to add anything more to that equation, i'm afraid not too many people are going to jump on board. Peace.

I thought I'd already posted this, but I don't see it...In the YouTube video I posted of Best with the Curtis band, clearly he's a solid drummer but the one thing I noticed a lack of was the cymbals/high hat sound that Ringo made so mesmerizing on the early Beatles' songs.

For you drummers/historians, was Ringo the first to use that constant cymbal sound on records? If so, he deserves a ton of credit for the Beatles sound and was quite the innovator.

I noticed Best used to avoid those cymbals.

The Beatles used to comment that their sounds was better the few times Ringo had played with them in Hamburg while Best was sick. I'll bet it was the cymbals.

interesting question. the constant cymbal sound was most likely not an outright innovation, it a common idea in jazz music and on jazz records. but in the context that you are describing, it is possible that it was in the neighborhood of being a kinda/sorta new idea, addition, or extension for the rock sound and the R&B sound they were trying oh so very hard to emulate.

nimrod

I was going to write a whole page response as usual, but this horse has been dead for 5 pages now.

hear hear

Quote

Here's how I feel. Pete Best deserves credit for sticking with the band during their 2 year growing pains. Yes, i'm sure they all got better with repetitive playing. Yes, Pete was probably the most popular member at the time. Yes, he got a bad deal in the end.

I dont think any fair minded Beatle fan would argue with that TBH.

Ive said previously I feel very sorry for Pete, he comes over as a nice guy and was unlucky IMO, (I didnt like how he said he was sacked because of Jealousy reasons on Letterman though) however it was up to the other 3 who they wanted as their drummer and they chose Ringo.

I believe Pete got quite a healthy royalty payment from the release of anthology 1 (in the millions according to some internet sites) so I guess in the end he got some compensation for his efforts in the band.

Ive said previously I feel very sorry for Pete, he comes over as a nice guy and was unlucky IMO, (I didnt like how he said he was sacked because of Jealousy reasons on Letterman though) however it was up to the other 3 who they wanted as their drummer and they chose Ringo.

I believe Pete got quite a healthy royalty payment from the release of anthology 1 (in the millions according to some internet sites) so I guess in the end he got some compensation for his efforts in the band.

There had to have been at least a little bit of jealousy when you think about them doing shows and all of the girls throwing themselves at Pete, the least talented of the four. For years I always thought Paul was making just making a balanced & fair assessment when he was quoted as saying "mean, moody & magnificent Pete Best". Then I recently learned that he was really just quoting what was written in a August 1961 Mersey Beat article on The Beatles. That's the article where Pete was singled out for his "mean, moody, magnificence" and John, Paul & George were never even mentioned. There is no one in the world that loved reading his press clipping as much as Paul did. Can you imagine how he felt when he read that article? I think it burned right into his brain. That's why to this day when he comments on Pete Best and says "mean, moody & magnificent Pete Best", he is really being sarcastic and getting in the last word on just how ridiculous he felt that Mersey Beat article was.

Pete loses the timing on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do". Ringo Starr had the same problem on his first studio attempt at "Love Me Do" also, despite having an additional month to learn it.

yes, but it didn't ruin the overall flow of the song, and they still sound like a rock band. and AFAIK Ringo did not have the same problem, it probably was a splitting of hairs thing with Sir George Martin. small potatoes my friend.

yes, but it didn't ruin the overall flow of the song, and they still sound like a rock band. and AFAIK Ringo did not have the same problem, it probably was a splitting of hairs thing with Sir George Martin. small potatoes my friend.

The fact is, Ringo did have the same problem as Pete. Both Martin & McCartney were unhappy. That is why Andy White was brought in the following week.

It is also important to remember that when people are comparing versions of Love Me Do, they are comparing Pete's 1st attempt with Ringo's final attempt.